Act Locally » July 10, 2013

A Fracktious Debate

Email this article to a friend

your email

your name

recipient(s) email (comma separated)

message

captcha

"I think it will be very difficult to get the cat back in the bag. ... When you pass these kinds of overarching regulations, which provide a full framework for fracking operations, that gives a green light to industry."

At the end of May, five Illinois environmental activists were arrested during a three-day sit-in at Gov. Pat Quinn’s office in an attempt to block legislation that critics say will open the floodgates to hydraulic fracturing in the state. Demonstrators denounced the governor for promoting the legislation without ever visiting a fracking site, but some grassroots activists had another bone to pick—with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Sierra Club and a handful of other environmental organizations that helped shape the bill.

Proponents of Illinois’ Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act (SB1715), which was signed into law on June 17, say that it will provide a stopgap mea- sure in the absence of federal regulations on the controversial practice. With the prospects for fracking moratoriums looking uncertain in other states—at the end of May, the California Legislature killed three such bills—some are looking to the Illinois regulations as a state-level model. But in light of the health and environmental risks associated with fracking—and uncertainty, given the secrecy of the industry and lack of disclosure requirements, about how widely fracking is already occurring—others believe that the environmental movement should accept nothing less than an all-out ban.

What does this legislation change about the landscape for regulations in the state of Illinois?

Josh: Before this bill was signed, fracking was completely legal and available to anyone who had $100 for a permit. That is a really ugly situation.

The regulations passed were not perfect and are nowhere near stringent enough to make fracking safe. But they include some strong pieces, including an assumption of liability for frackers if contamination appears in the water near their activities, and protections that allow citizens to challenge permits and to take part in that process, and an array of other information-gathering pieces that just didn’t exist.

Kristen: This legislation is not based on a scientific determination of what is safe and isn’t safe. It is based on a political determination of what politicans were telling the environmental community would be achievable. This bill—which was a compromise bill that was hashed out by industry and a very select group of “Big Green” organizations—really provided the oil and gas industry the road map that it needed to come and use the state of Illinois as a factory plant. Before that, the industry was holding off because of uncertainty.

Illinois’ regulations are being hailed as the strongest in the nation, but in four other states, there are currently moratoriums on fracking until its health and environmental impact can be studied more completely. Which approach should environmental activists be pursuing?

Sean: We’re at a crossroads on this question. There’s an enormous amount of pressure to make all sorts of pragmatic accommodations because of the power of the industry and the enemy we’re facing. But the effectiveness of regulation would require a level of honesty from the industry that I don’t think it’s likely to ever adhere to.

Josh: The NRDC and a host of other groups from the environmental community have attempted without success to pass a moratorium on fracking in Illinois for the last two years. I wish that many of the critics who have been loud of late would have been more engaged earlier. Ultimately, when powerful interests in the state of Illinois were looking to advance regulations, the environmental community was left with a very difficult decision of whether to engage in the discussion on potential regulatory rules. The decision we made was that it would be a big mistake to move forward and allow industry to sit down at the table with politicos and basically write their own rules. The NRDC and several other environmental groups were selected to sit down and represent the community at the table.

Kristin: In New York state, the exact same discussions were had: “Should we continue to push for a moratorium that doesn’t look politically feasible?” But they decided to fight for what they knew was right, and they won [an extension to the moratorium implemented in 2010]. When the movement against fracking has been successful, it’s because groups have come together to determine their own future, instead of having some backdoor deal where the industry, politicians and a very select few green groups decide what is going to happen in the rest of the state. From our perspective, the approach to this bill was flawed not only scientifically, but democratically.

Many major national environmental organizations at one time endorsed natural gas as an alternative to coal. Is there still a gulf between these Big Green groups and grassroots ones on the question of fracking?

Josh: Frankly, I’m a little concerned about the narrative of division within the movement that’s emerged following this fight. There are differences from state to state. In Illinois, fracking is already occurring, and we simply didn’t feel as though leaving people in this state completely exposed to the known risks of fracking was a tenable position. Ultimately, we would have preferred for a moratorium to move forward, and we are very interested in working on that in future sessions.

Kristin: I think it will be very difficult to get the cat back in the bag. In Illinois, the reality was that fracking wasn’t happening. But when you pass these kinds of overarching regulations, which provide a full framework for fracking operations, that gives a green light to industry.

Josh: The fact that NRDC was able, through a Freedom of Information Act request, to find one frack job from 2012 makes it clear that that’s probably just the tip of the iceberg.

What impact are labor’s positions on this issue having on the strength of the movement against fracking? During the fight in Illinois, we saw the state AFL- CIO and other labor groups join with industry to lobby for this legislation. Elsewhere, the building trades unions have helped lobby for fracking in the Marcellus Shale basin.

Sean: Many unions have no position whatsoever on fracking, which is astonishing when you think about the amount of noise there’s been around this issue. What’s at stake in the labor movement at the moment is not just about one project, it’s the advancement of an agenda based on domestic fossil fuel development. The export and building trades, in particular, are fully on board with that agenda, and at the moment, too many big unions are avoiding this fight. Meanwhile, too many of the mainstream environmental organizations are quite happy with market mechanisms and liberalization of energy markets.

So we all have to do some learning and rethinking. The vision we put forward has to be a clear one: We’re against extreme energy. We’re for equitable, sustainable renewables built on community-based power.

Is it possible, given present divisions, to build the kind of coalition that could advance this vision?

Josh: The fight against the Keystone XL pipeline is one where everybody is on the same page and moving forward, and it has certainly achieved a lot. The fracking issue is somewhat different in that there are varying landscapes in different states. But if we’re going to win these fights, we need to be bringing folks together.

Kristin: Obviously we are always stronger together. But it is important that all groups be respected in their interests and their approach, and that didn’t happen in Illinois. There are still a lot of opportunities for environmental groups to be working together, though. We’re excited to have that happening as we move forward with a push for a moratorium in California.

Sean: There’s a cautionary footnote to this discussion of coalitions: The danger is that they often become the lowest common denominator. What I would rather see, instead of a broad coalition that can’t make decisions or be clear on something as important as Keystone XL or fracking, is to have a group of unions who put forward a different vision and are prepared to fight those who are in alliance with the industry. Even though that’s not unity, it’s more productive to have that and have a real debate inside the movement about which side you’re on.

Rebecca Burns is an In These Times associate editor. Her writing on labor, housing and education has also appeared in Al Jazeera America, Jacobin, Truthout and AlterNet. She can be reached at rebecca[at]inthesetimes.com. Follow her on Twitter @rejburns

Well, I stumbled upon your podcast quite by accident and now I'm thoroughly engrossed & hooked, thanks for that! :-) You and DriftGlass certainly are preaching to the choir over here!! I liked this episode particulary because I'm very green & care about what we do to the environment. I do however like the point you made about realizing that your PC runs on coal (or some other flaver of fossil fuel) I think we need more middle of the road viewpoints on this and other extracting technologies. Which is a great segue for me to ask you a question. I recently went to a family reunion and reunited with a few first cousins I haven't seen since the early 80's. On that side of the family there is a long line of coal miners. Well, one of the cousins hubby's is doing what they call "Moutaintop" mining for a living, I've heard that it is bad, but I don't know what exactly makes it so bad. Can you recommend a book or documentary? It's also hard because we are planning a few more family get togethers over the course of the next few months & I don't want to "Go in there gun's blazing" so to speak, but I guess I want to learn more about it. TY,MadamGeekess (aka Irene please only use me alias on air :-))

Posted by Madam Geekess on 2013-08-07 13:31:22

I wish I didn't agree. It should be pointed out however, since you raised the issue, it's this two winged one party that makes laws which cause it to be almost impossible to get anyone on a state or federal ballot to oppose this status quo. That takes huge sums of money and even then, since the corporate media is owned by the corporate media, even those who do succeed in getting on the ballot are almost never heard from so people know nothing about them. In every regard, the system is broken and no where is it more broken than in the mainstream media in all it's forms that serve the ruling elite and they plan on keeping things just as they are, but if a serious challenge does arise, the laws enacted since 9/11 would allow for their arrest and even their assassination. And yes, I DO wish I were making this up.

Posted by History301 on 2013-07-14 00:56:58

An uninformed point of view if ever I read one. Cicero please! Which oil or government agency do you work for? You can tell us. We expect such attempts to divide and practice disinformation. You realize Germany produces 80% of it's electricity using green methods right? Are they in the employ of the Saudis? Is Germany not progressing by using clean energy? Judging by your comment, that would be the case. Welcome to common dreams. A place for all points of view, even uninformed ones. Gee, it must be those socialists, communists, fascists, or some other type name calling that attracts you to comment in such a way. And I didn't so much as call you one derogatory name. Go figure.

Posted by History301 on 2013-07-14 00:47:08

What debate? Fossil fuels must go period, or we won't have human life on this planet in another hundred years or so if current trends continue. The technology to end roughly 90% of burning fossil fuels exists right now as in, today. Only the money invested to purchase lawmakers/breakers stands in the way of true progress. Science not funded by special interests is clear on this and if anything, even those estimates are optimistic as we learn with each new independent study. As someone once said, people are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts, IF we follow facts, the math speaks for itself and if that is the case, it isn't an opinion that fossil fuels must go, it's the cold, or hot hard truth. It would be helpful if people quit obtaining their information on this subject from the corporate press and which network makes little difference. With only five major media corporations left, we receive only five points of view and most of those are exactly the same in content. And on every issue. Framing is the only difference I see when I do check out what narrative they are selling. What a system!

Posted by History301 on 2013-07-14 00:36:52

Progressives and other socialist slobs should stop trying to destroy our economy by opposing all forms of progress, such as fracking. Maybe they're in the pay of the Saudi oil sheiks.

Posted by Cicero on 2013-07-13 19:07:57

What progressives? Do they still exist? There's no argument - fracking and the keystone pipeline are destructive and no meaningless (but lucrative) laws will change that. Many who call themselves progressive voted for Obama the second time. Don't you get it yet? WE have one party, with two wings. There is no lesser evil. It's all evil, and evil doesn't have degrees.....if there were real progressives around, they had four years to come up with a third party, a real choice but no, they argue among themselves thus ensuring that the bad guys always win. Poor little old us.